Cosmopolitan Type II

[tom buckley]

I'm probably way off, but here's my thoughts on the Cosmo Type II.
What about the possibility that instead of using a modified Gardner mould or cutting off the part to be crimped, new moulds were made to produce a bullet that looked like a .54 Gardner based on examples on hand?

[Jim T]

I agree with Tom 100%.     Fresh bullet moulds were continually needed as old ones wore out.  Dean found many invoices to "local-yocals" for moulds throughout the war.  In this case, my guess is that a mould was ordered simply for a cone cavity rifle ball.  The maker just happened to model the profile after a Gardner, and made the noted modifications for any number of reasons...maybe to reduce the weight of the bullet.  Often when moulds were ordered, the only "instruction" given was a specific diameter or that the size should equal "X number of bullets per pound of lead."  The shape, profile, and number of grooves of the bullet ended up being whatever that mould maker's conception of a "minie ball" was.

[ETEX]

Hey Skip glad to see you posting. I too take an average of four measurements to get the most accurate diameter and will do this several times for a comparison. I have always thought the Cosmopolitan Type II looked and has very similar traits to the Gardner. I think a lot of positive thoughts were thrown out and all seem very plausible. Extremely good posts and thoughts on this topic.

[ETEX]

I have added a photo of the Cosmo Type II and a 54 Caliber Gardner with bulb nose for comparison.

[R.L. Bryant]

These were all dug at Prairie Grove on private property then belonging to Gary Steerman.  Unfortunately, the State of Arkansas now owns the location where these came from, so there will be no more removed from that specific locale.

[ETEX]

Thanks for adding the photo. I recall seeing that picture several years ago and can't remember where. It was too bad about Prairie Grove changing hands when it did because a lot of good bullets were dug in that location.

[R.L. Bryant]

I still have this frame in my collection.  I believe I posted this photo on the old forum a few years back.  As far as I know, this is the largest intact group of the type in existence.  No doubt there are still a few of them there in the ground.  I have a couple of other "odd balls" that I will post up later that I would like to get some opinions on, from the same location as the Cosmo bunch.

[R.L. Bryant]

Here are the couple of other oddballs that we never really got a solid I.D. on.  Cavities are shallow dish shaped.  They are both the same type, one has a slight pushed in deformity at the base (piece on right).  Does anyone here have any ideas, other than just more odd Trans-Mississippian bullets ?  I've only see the two of this particular piece, found along side some of the Hindmans in the same location as the Cosmos.  Having known several diggers in that area, I have seen many other types that "didn't quite fit the mold" so to speak.  Bill Carter, my old hunting buddy, named the Hindman for that particular type.  Still, he had only found 3 or 4 of those over the years.

[dlw1610]

Mine, dug in Cave Hill, Arkansas is .514 X .939.

David

[ETEX]

R.L.

Interesting looking bullet. I can't help with the identity because it's a new one to me. The one on the left is a beauty. If you are bored with one of them just send it on over because it would look great in my Trans-Mississippi collection.

Terry have you dug any of these in your neck of the woods in or around Crump's Hill?

Lets hear from more of the Arkansas diggers, have any of yall dug this bullet in other parts of the state?

[ETEX]

R.L. - I meant to add in the earlier post I remember the picture being posted on the old forum now that you jogged my memeory. I know a lot of folks wanted to purchase one or two of the bullets when that posting came out. By reading your latest post I couldn't really tell if the collection stayed intact and you have it are got sold off individually. I hope it stayed intact personally, it needs to stay as one group of a collection.

[R.L. Bryant]

The frame as pictured above of the Cosmo-II bullets is still intact.  The Museum at Prairie Grove Battlefield had discussed purchasing them, but later decided not to.  I added the two oddballs to the Cosmo-II frame since they came from the same location.  Of those two, I believe the one on the left is a drop and the one on the right fired.  I have to talk with the widow of another one of our hunting partners to see if she still has another group of Cosmo-II and Hindman bullets, and possibly some other TM types from Prairie Grove.  Need to track it down while I still can, and hopefully add that material to these.

[Big Lefty]

My "Cosmo Type II" mic's out at 0.52 in.; is 0.94 in in height, and weighs 23 grams. 

As far as names go, us Trans-Miss bullet collectors certainly know what type of bullet the name implies.  It's certainly not a carbine bullet.  Personally, I like to call them "Missouri Sharpshooter" bullets as several were found in an 1862 camp of Pindall's MO SS Btn, but I think "Cosmo Type II" is here to stay.  Not being a purist, I frankly don't care if this is not the correct name because no one knows the correct name.  Same goes for "Tom Green," "Arkansas Hog," "Mississippi," "Sterling Price," etc.  When you mention those names, collectors know what you mean.

[Skip]

These are arsenal produced bullets. In this case they were made to be used in a .54 caliber rifled musket be it an enfield, a Mississippi rifle , an Austrian, any musket that fired a .54 caliber bullet. The Ordinance Department did not care what type of weapon you shouldered nor did it give a hoot as to what unit you belonged to. If you had a .54 caliber rifle  they were going to ship you whatever .54 caliber ammunition they had on hand. Just because your batallion recieved some CCTII's does not make them unique to your unit.

Sometimes this overanalysis gets a little out of hand.

[R.L. Bryant]

If these were arsenal produced, I would be interested in knowing why they all appear to be the product of a single mold cavity with the same mold offset and cavity flashing characteristics.   This is something nobody seems to take into consideration when investigating the possibility that they were field produced rather than an arsenal made product.  The very limited number of these found and the related sites where specific groups were known to be during different engagements also might reinforce this theory.  It seems to me their limited numbers and characteristics puts into question whether they are arsenal produced or not.  My feeling, just based on common sense, indicates to me that they were not.